Imperial German S 1898 aA Sawback ~ F.P.3.33. regimental........? ? ?

[shippingsteel]

Yes they are making the assumption that because the weapon is in Africa and likely USED by the German colonial forces, that the marking must relate to them. But the weaponry could also have been pre-used surplus that had been redeployed to the SW African campaign, with the markings stamped belonging to their previous service. 

The dates appear to be in the 1900-1905 range which would fit with the Herero Wars, and the style of marking looks to be in accordance with regulations, but I think we are still looking at what the F could stand for. 

They are stuck on FP being Fuhrpark Kolonne but the regulations say the single letter F is appropriate for that ... and how many Motor vehicle columns would be used in colonial Africa circa 1900.!

IF they are correct and it IS an African marking the designation COULD more likely be P for Proviant-Kolonne (Supply Column) and in line with their reasoning the F is simply Feld (for Field) 

I would still tend towards the pre-marked line with the weaponry coming out of depots and being sent to Africa. Being marked specifically for a campaign against the natives seems to be a long shot, as the stampings appear to be otherwise to regulation. 

Cheers, SS 

[trajan]

12 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

Yes they are making the assumption that because the weapon is in Africa and likely USED by the German colonial forces, that the marking must relate to them. But the weaponry could also have been pre-used surplus that had been redeployed to the SW African campaign, with the markings stamped belonging to their previous service. 

The dates appear to be in the 1900-1905 range which would fit with the Herero Wars, and the style of marking looks to be in accordance with regulations, but I think we are still looking at what the F could stand for. 

They are stuck on FP being Fuhrpark Kolonne but the regulations say the single letter F is appropriate for that ... and how many Motor vehicle columns would be used in colonial Africa circa 1900.!

IF they are correct and it IS an African marking the designation COULD more likely be P for Proviant-Kolonne (Supply Column) and in line with their reasoning the F is simply Feld (for Field) 

I would still tend towards the pre-marked line with the weaponry coming out of depots and being sent to Africa. Being marked specifically for a campaign against the natives seems to be a long shot, as the stampings appear to be otherwise to regulation. 

Cheers, SS 

Happy New Year from Turkey SS, and yes, I am still here(!) and will try to follow this up better tomorrow (well, today actually!). I'll try to get to my office and check what Haupt says in his Die deutsche Schutztruppe. Off hand I do recall that there were Proviant-Kolonne and that the companies in the individual bases were referred to as Feld-Kompagnie. 

[shippingsteel]

However looking back at the "Order of Battle" for the Schutztruppe in SW Africa, that Bert kindly provided, the listing does correlate fairly well, especially with the 2.F.R.E.4 marking, as they DID have the Feld-Regiment Nr.2 with the Ersatz Kompanie Nr.4.!

http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/Schutztruppe_für_Deutsch-Südwestafrika_(Kaiserreich)

Looking further down the listing shows a number of Proviant columns including a 3rd, so perhaps the Feld-Proviant-Kolonne, Abteilung Nr.3 is looking pretty good after all.!

Another year comes around, and still happy to be learning new things, this GWF forum never grows old ... err, maybe just the people who post on it.!  Happy New Year to all 

Cheers, SS 

Edited 31 December , 2021 by shippingsteel

[ersatz]

On 30/12/2021 at 03:05, AndyBsk said:

As mentioned there are more explanation , the 1897 manual speaks for similar details. F.P it could be Festung Park too, anyway the 3 company is little strange, as similar Fortress units were  in range of Abteilungen. FKP on motorcycle could be Fahrrad Kompanie Posen to sample,Fuhrpark Kolonne Posen. There is mounted IOD1889 sword on the motorbike.

F.  Füsilier, Festungs, Fuß,  Fuhrpark - (Kolonne)

P. Pionier, Proviant, Pferde (Depot), Park, (Jäger oder Gendarmerie Regiment) zu Pferde

The F and P are different sizes dies. From all this i tend to war period unit.

I carefully scanned the cross guard area using an eye loop where you feel an earlier marking may have been.   The area only showed typical scratches and wear from age and conforms to the opposite cross guard dimensions.   

[ersatz]

 Gentlemen, I am very impressed and appreciative to ALL who have contributed their time and expertise to offer an explanation for the FP marking on my aA sawback.  I especailly thank Robert (bert.f) and SS for providing referencing materials covering the marking.    

The BEST to everyone for a Happy & Healthy 2022 New Year !

[shippingsteel]

I think it is Robert that should be commended ... the rest of us I think were simply trying to "correlate the information" and "fact check the data" 

Cheers, SS 

[bert.f]

Hello, observed;

Kar98;

F.P.3.72  Erfurt 1901

F.P.1.32 Erfurt 1904

5 F.P.4.51 1905

Bayonets

5.FP 2.123 ,S71/84 , W88

3.FP 2.3  ,S 71/84 W 87

FP 3.33 , S98, W90

Scan book by 'Werner Haupt Die Deutsche Schutztruppe 1889-1918'

[trajan]

5 hours ago, bert.f said:

Kar98;

F.P.3.72  Erfurt 1901

F.P.1.32 Erfurt 1904

5 F.P.4.51 1905

Bayonets

5.FP 2.123 ,S71/84 , W88

3.FP 2.3  ,S 71/84 W 87

FP 3.33 , S98, W90

Hi Bert, 

And Szczęśliwego Nowego Roku! (no, I don't speak Polish, but I do have a book published in the language - ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 8378895661 / ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-8378895664!)

Thanks for posting those scans as it saved me from having to do so. I couldn't find a clear reference in Haupt to motor transport, which SS was asking about, but several references to various forms of 'wagen', including ox-drawn ones. 

Thanks also for posting those unit serial numbers - I don't have most of those.

BUT I am still not convinced that this FP is a Schutztruppe marking, not without some factual information to support this identification - e.g., an official register or complete chain of evidence for a weapon now in South Africa as having been there since 1918 or so.

Back to basics. The significant enlargement of the K.Schutztruppen in response to the Herero rebellion evidently saw a bureaucratic decision to give what was in effect a new series of Imperial field units that constutued that formation a new title to distinguish it from other regular army formations. Hence, I believe, the establishment of the unit designation Feld-Regiment for the Imperial units in Africa, and so the  "2.F.R.1.105" and "2.F.R.E.4.179." markings we see on the examples at http://www.germancolonialuniforms.co.uk/militaria/bayonets dswa.htm These markings were needed, I would stress, to clearly distinguish the weapons concerned from those held by regular army units.

The precedent for this course of action was the formation of the Imperial Ostasiastisches Expedition-Korps in 1900, and so markings such as '1.O.J.98' for the 1 Ostasiasitche Jaeger Kompagnie Waffe 98'. Similarily, of course, those weapons held by the Imperial navy were marked in such a way to clearly distinguish them from other military non-Imperial units.

No problem then with establishing a unit designation Feld-Regiment for the troops sent to Africa. But I would stress that it was clearly thought necessary to distinguish the new Imperial 'regiments' in Asia (and the navy) by creating a new designation, and then to mark the weapons of the various units involved in this Korps in such a way as to clearly distinguish them from those held by the regular army units at 'home'. Thus markings such as '1.O.J.98', or others in a sequence 'O.P.X.XXX', for weapons held by the Ostasiastisches Pioneer-Kompagnie / Bataillones. 

IF it was thought necessary to create the term Feld-Regiment for the new Imperial formation in Africa, wouldn't it follow on the pattern of the Ostasiastisches Korps that a similar dististinguishing mark would be used for its sub-units, such as a Fuhrpark-Kolonne? Aside from which, do we know if there even was a separate Fuhrpark detachment seconded to these Feld-Regimenten in 1904, instead of them creating their own sub-unit as shown in the records? All I have been able to find on this matter is a mention by Husen, in his Der Sanitätsdienst in Südwestafrika that a Sanitätsfuhrpark formed part of the unit's Transportkolonnen from 1905.  

Moreover, if we are to accept the possibility that these FP marked rifles and bayonets were issued to the original Schutztruppen, then we would rather oddly not have a single regular army Fuhrpark marked weapon! 

Finally, while I am at it, to come back to a point made by AndyB earlier.  There are over 300 surviving Schutztruppen-marked Ks.98's and these are consecutively numbered in three separate sequences - they are not numbered according to Kompagnie, or any other system. This would seem to be, as Jackson suggests, that the KS XXXX markings on the Ks 98 bayonets was introduced / systemised only in 1910. 

Julian

Edited 1 January , 2022 by trajan
Crossed out a section as it was not clealry explained here

[bert.f]

Hi Julian, Mutlu Yillar 2022

No, i cant think of anything oft the top of my head, the protection troops formed a part of the military of the German Empire, independent of the Imperial Army. Prussian sapper anits did not use S 71/84 bayonets

Sorry, i do not speak English

Edited 1 January , 2022 by bert.f

[trajan]

47 minutes ago, bert.f said:

Hi Julian, Mutlu Yillar 2022

No, i cant think of anything oft the top of my head, the protection troops formed a part of the military of the German Empire, independent of the Imperial Army. Prussian sapper anits did not use S 71/84 bayonets

Sorry, i do not speak English

Hi Bert,

I don't think the Schutzentruppen were regular units - but I am happy to be corrected. They began in 1880 as the para-military Truppe des Reichkommisars and were renamed Kaiserliche Schutztruppen in 1895, and were all volunteer units, so not regular army. The title Kaiserliche = 'Imperial' implies as much - same as with the Kaiserliche Marine. They were also under the command of the Reichs-Kolonialamt, not the Heer. 

Julian

[AndyBsk]

Interesting discussion here, when comparing the unit it could be correct, i dont known much about Schutztruppe, anyway the Kar98 were mostly used with KS98 bayonets, but offcoarse some exception could be there, same as one of the waffenmeister would add his inventory stamp, for similar short live units, is this little strange, but certainly when existed similar stamps on rifles so on bayonets is understandable too.

[ersatz]

Hello everyone . . . . . .  Yes, Bert has contributed much to my inquiry, as you yourself SS have, and others.  I am particularly pleased to see that another S98 bayonet with identical unit markings has been identified and referenced.  This forum continues to be a wonderful fraternity of knowledgeable collectors who continually help to further our interests in weapons, etc. of the Great War.  Thank you for the learning experiences ! ! !  

 

[GreyC]

7 hours ago, trajan said:

renamed Kaiserliche Schutztruppen in 1895, and were all volunteer units, so not regular army. The title Kaiserliche = 'Imperial' implies as much - same as with the Kaiserliche Marine. They were also under the command of the Reichs-Kolonialamt, not the Heer. 

Julian

A few annotations, if I may.

The Schutztruppen got their name as early as 1891, as in "Gesetz, betreffend die Kaiserliche Schutztruppe für Deutsch-Ostafrika" of 22nd March 1891. They were voluntary units formed mainly by soldiers of the Heer and the Marine, but not entirely and were, as Julian pointed out, not part of either. They were released for temporary service there:

§. 2.

Die Schutztruppe wird gebildet:

a) aus Offizieren, Ingenieuren des Soldatenstandes, Sanitätsoffizieren, Beamten und Unteroffizieren des Reichsheeres und der Kaiserlichen Marine, welche auf Grund freiwilliger Meldung der Schutztruppe zeitweise zugetheilt werden,

b) aus angeworbenen Farbigen.

§. 3.

Die der Schutztruppe zugetheilten deutschen Militärpersonen und Beamten scheiden aus dem Heere und, soweit sie der Kaiserlichen Marine angehören, aus dem Etat der letzteren aus.

Sie gelten als außer diesem Etat stehende, zeitweise abkommandirte Angehörige der Kaiserlichen Marine.

Die der Schutztruppe zugetheilten Civilbeamten der Militär- oder Marineverwaltung gelten als Militärbeamte.

 

Kaiserlich here means that the troops were directly under the command of the Reich and therefore the KAISER, not under the command of the head of states from where the units were stationed during peacetime (unless contractually organised otherwise).  That´s the reason why the Navy was imperial also in peacetime as were the Schutztruppen. The Heer turned imperial only in times of war.

There were voluntary paramilitary organisations that had "Kaiserlich" in their title, because they were under the patronage of the Kaiser, like the Deutsche Freiwillige Automobilkorps, that changed its name to Freiwilliges Kaiserliches Automobilkorps in 1914 and then to Kaiserliches Kraftfahrkorps. But that´s a different story.

GreyC

 

Edited 1 January , 2022 by GreyC

[shippingsteel]

13 hours ago, trajan said:

Moreover, if we are to accept the possibility that these FP marked rifles and bayonets were issued to the original Schutztruppen, then we would rather oddly not have a single regular army Fuhrpark marked weapon! 

Yes exactly, and that is because technically and according to regulations the F.P. marking should NOT exist. In the regular peacetime army the smaller Supply type units came bundled under the management of the Train-Bataillon which were numbered as per regular units.

So unit marked weapons would have a number and T at the beginning of the string, with a letter following, as per F (Fuhrpark), P (Proviant), L (Feldlazarett), S (Sanitats), B (Feldbackerei), and PD (Horse Depot)

This makes the F.P. marking particularly difficult, as it is not normal, however the German army detachment sent to fight in SW Africa was not setup with normal organisation. And F.P. according to regulations is NOT Fuhrpark.! 

Cheers, SS 

[shippingsteel]

Looking at the Mauser book by Ball, they list the F.P.3.72 example as a  Erfurt 1901 Kav.Kar.98 from a South African private collection. So this is the original Cavalry Carbine version, but one that has been modified to attach the bayonet. 

Also looking at the German SW Africa "order of battle" it shows that approximately half the Infantry were actually mounted troops. I guess this could also open up the possibility of the P standing for Pferde (Horse) as in Pferde reiter soldaten.? Plenty regiments from that Boer War era were simply denoted as Horse ...

Cheers, SS 

[shippingsteel]

Further to that theory, are the markings that we can see here, very similar style and fonts. The 2nd Feld-Regiment marks are well documented and can be substantiated against the records. But we see no 1st Feld-Regiment markings.? Also it happens that it was the 1st Regiment that was Mounted, so I put it to you that the F.P. markings are their regiment, as in Feld-Horse.!

Cheers, SS 

[shippingsteel]

For illustration purposes only ...  I am not certain of date or detachment 

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/25/6a/46/256a460c52994d7647ab81f277fb5131--military-photos-military-men.jpg

Of particular interest I note the SG98 attached, and also the spurs indicating Mounted troops. 

Cheers, SS 

PS. From further study of related photos on the net I am confident that this image depicts a soldier of the SW Africa contingent immediately before departure from Germany. The studio and backdrop was well used and reads Windhoek on wider shots. 

Edited 2 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[trajan]

There are arguments for and against every possible identification of the marking offered in this thread. So, for example, 'F.P.' would be an acceptable if irregular abbreviated mark for a Fuhrpark-Kolonne Proviant as in the 1877 marking regulations. The fact is that we will never know for certain and quite certainly never reach full agreement on what this particular marking means, but I would rather go for an easier and straightforward reading than a more contrived one. After all, this is not a literary text in which case the Stet Difficilior Lectio axiom might apply. 

Oh, and no, I cannot accept that because there is a carbine in a South African collection with an 'F.P.' marking then that carbine must have belonged to a Schutzentruppen unit and the marking also - not without a good chain-of-evidence! SS once rightly chided me in my early collecting days for assuming that those of my P.1903 and P.1907 bayonets marked to units that fought at Gallipoli and which come from Turkish private collections must have been used there. The same applies here. Now, if that carbine was in a museum, with some form of documented proof of its provenance, that would be a different matter. 

[AndyBsk]

From the provided details of stamps, i would believe the F in both samples are identical with some small errors so it was done probably by one armorers. The second letters as P and R are about 0,5mm smaller in size, this as mentioned are not correct manual stamping and by short living units as the KSch was its certainly little strange, but i already saw that some strange units were observed on same unit and was partly because the armorer has done a strange job. Not always under manual configuration.

[trajan]

25 minutes ago, AndyBsk said:

From the provided details of stamps, i would believe the F in both samples are identical with some small errors so it was done probably by one armorers. The second letters as P and R are about 0,5mm smaller in size, this as mentioned are not correct manual stamping and by short living units as the KSch was its certainly little strange, but i already saw that some strange units were observed on same unit and was partly because the armorer has done a strange job. Not always under manual configuration.

Thanks for this comment AndyB.

I wouldn't put too much cash on matching these stamps to the same armourer though. There are too many factors involved - e.g., depth of stamping, number of dies available, hand-stamping versus roller-stamping, etc., etc.. And as you say, there are 'small' errors / differences in these two. I have been looking at unit-marks for some years now, and could - if I had the time! - probably find several examples of 'identical' dies and many more examples of similar ones. 

As far as I am aware nobody except Jackson has even done a detailed examination of the dies used for marking bayonets, etc., by a single unit. He was able to identify several 'stamping' sessions for marking the 300 or so surviving Schutztruppen Ks.98 bayonets. He narrowed these down to the marking being done by two separate depots in several sessions. He discovered that there were a minimum of 10 different dies used in the bayonets he was able to examine. Which was quite nice in a way as the records indicate that the Scutztruppen emplyed 11 different armourers! This explains why the stampings of one single set of bayonets marked in the same period / stamping session showed evidence for four different dies being used.

Julian 

[shippingsteel]

From what I have seen, in looking into the details behind the rifle side of these FP markings, there is no doubt in my mind that they are certainly Schutztruppe related, and marked before the KS marking regime began circa 1910.

So the FP marked carbine in the SA collection is what the media might term the proverbial "smoking gun".! Anyone who knows anything about Mausers will tell you the original Kav.Kar.98 and Art.Kar.98 are the rarest of birds. Only about 2-3,000 of these carbines were made and trialled receiving unfavourable reports. They were then dropped in favour of the Kar.98A version. 

So the original carbines were recalled and surplus until the Colonial war in GSWA came along. Somebody decided it would be a great idea to drop these useless carbines into the Colonies.! Some were even modified to take the S98 bayonet, becoming mit Aufpflanz  vorrichtung. Amongst collectors these types are known as Colonial variants.

So all 3 of the FP rifles from that 1900-05 period are Kar.98 carbine length versions with bayonet attachment, suggesting Mounted Infantry usage, which fits with what the 1st Regiment were.

And we also know the Schutztruppe had these original Kar.98 weapons from the Photographic record. With this excellent photo linked below showing one of the rarest Art.Kar.98 versions in hand. So the story definitely all checks out.! 

Cheers, SS 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paranoid_womb/6928341734/

[shippingsteel]

Another interesting snippet, from the Mauser book by Ball, is the existence of a KS marked Gew98 rifle which has had its butt disc reused by the Colonial authorities.

So on one side it is marked KS with serial number, and on the other side FK, which is possibly another of the DSWA system of "F marking".!

So any takers on Kolonne or perhaps even Kamel-Reiter.? Just another variation to try and get your head around.! 

Does though give an indication of the timeline of the KS markings and what may have came before. 

Cheers, SS 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_105-DSWA0095,_Deutsch-Süd-Westafrika,_Kamelreiterpatrouille.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R24738,_Deutsch-Südwestafrika,_Herero-Aufstand.jpg

Edited 3 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[trajan]

9 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

... So the FP marked carbine in the SA collection is what the media might term the proverbial "smoking gun".! Anyone who knows anything about Mausers will tell you the original Kav.Kar.98 and Art.Kar.98 are the rarest of birds. Only about 2-3,000 of these carbines were made and trialled receiving unfavourable reports. They were then dropped in favour of the Kar.98A version. 

So the original carbines were recalled and surplus until the Colonial war in GSWA came along. Somebody decided it would be a great idea to drop these useless carbines into the Colonies.! Some were even modified to take the S98 bayonet, becoming mit Aufpflanz  vorrichtung. Amongst collectors these types are known as Colonial variants.

So all 3 of the FP rifles from that 1900-05 period are Kar.98 carbine length versions with bayonet attachment, suggesting Mounted Infantry usage, which fits with what the 1st Regiment were.

And we also know the Schutztruppe had these original Kar.98 weapons from the Photographic record. With this excellent photo linked below showing one of the rarest Art.Kar.98 versions in hand. So the story definitely all checks out.! 

Cheers, SS 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paranoid_womb/6928341734/

For what it is worth, on this topic of firearms, etc., used by the Schutztruppen, it is always useful to check official records for what they say.

The official account of the 'Der Feldzug gegen die Hereros' as published by the Prussian Grosser Generalstab in 1906 states quite specifically that the Schutztruppe at that time were armed with Gew.88 and the S.71/84. There is no mention in this account of the Gew.98. Similarly in the 'Der Hottentottenkrieg', published by the same authority in 1907, only Gew.88 are mentioned, no 98 models.

Likewise there are several mentions of fights with fixed bayonets, e.g., p.52, 'Der Feldzug...': in the account of events following immediately from the death of Leutnant v. Wöllwarth on 11th February 1904 (he was shot in the leg and died during its amputation), we read as follows: 'Als die Hereros die Kompagnie, die jetzt die 'Stellung" Seitengewehre aufpflanzte, immer näher...' 

The Kar.88 did not take a bayonet, as did the Gew.88, so this confirms that the Schutztruppen in 1904-05 were armed with these rifles, not carbines. I have yet to discover when the Scutztruppen were supplied with Gew.98 and the Kar.98AZ. 

By the way, something new for me was the discovery from the German texts that a Marine-Infanterie Bataillon was despached from Germany to assist the Schutztruppen in the 1904/05 campaign.

On the OP that started all this rather lengthy thread, I still say that we will never be able to come to any agreement on what the marking stands for, but I for one certainly would not bring the Schutztruppen into it on the basis of a Carbine in a South African collection! As I wrote before, "The fact is that we will never know for certain and quite certainly never reach full agreement on what this particular marking means, but I would rather go for an easier and straightforward reading than a more contrived one. After all, this is not a literary text in which case the Stet Difficilior Lectio axiom might apply." 

That said, I think we have all learnt a lot more about the Schutztruppen than we ever knew before! 

Julian

On 02/01/2022 at 00:18, GreyC said:

"Gesetz, betreffend die Kaiserliche Schutztruppe für Deutsch-Ostafrika" of 22nd March 1891.

Belated thanks GreyC - and a belated Happy New Year also!

Julian

[shippingsteel]

But then we see the Schutztruppen in DSWA armed with the Gew98, in photos from the Bundesarchiv.! Extremely good quality images that always allows the zooming in on the important details. In this image cropped from the link I posted earlier,  which shows a Kamel-reiter patrol, the weapon is undeniably a Gew98.!

Cheers, SS 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_105-DSWA0095,_Deutsch-Süd-Westafrika,_Kamelreiterpatrouille.jpg

Edited 3 January , 2022 by shippingsteel

[trajan]

Yes, but WHEN did they received these Gew.98? Clearly not before 1905 - or are you saying that the Prussian General Staff have got it all wrong?!

Most of my relevant books are in my office... I will try to go there tomorrow to check these.